A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 12th 14, 12:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike I Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On 8/11/2014 6:51 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:

I've used this on the ramp just before launch to help make a decision on which way storms are moving or developing. It's also good for deciding on whether or not to disassemble. Works great on a small screen PDA phone.



Walt Rogers WX


Unfortunately, some don't stop using their smart phone app's on the ground. With the near real-time-radar app and artificial horizon app's that are available today, I have seen tracks that deliberately flew under thunderstorms on a MAT day. Two pilots even admitted to "icing up". I believe we need strong enforcement of the NO SMART PHONE accessible in the cockpit rule.......................or we will be picking someone up with a stick and spoon! We all know what awaits us inside a thunderstorm...........ice, hail, lightning and perhaps the biggest factor disorientation! Some may even be tempted to teach themselves how to fly inside clouds OJT.

I recommend the CD at every contest, be directed to check every cockpit on every takeoff, next year.

JJ Sinclair

Hi JJ,

I remember when it was illegal to have a GPS device in the cockpit.
Didn't last long.

--
Mike I Green
  #22  
Old August 12th 14, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Chuckle, chuckle. ;-). Thank you all for my lunchtime reading and some heartfelt laughter.



This thread has already recycled several of my favorite old topics.



1) I do not see how a rule change can "thread the needle' on this issue. There is far too much subjectivity in determining "what is fair?" In a sport which allows starting literally anytime after the starting gate opens (competitors often choosing to start HOURS apart) and a sport that is is often only "constrained" by 60 MILE wide turn area's, LUCK is INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED IN! Who are we trying to kid? This is why I would like to see a far higher proportion of pure Assigned Tasks along with limitations on the start gate (30 minute window for example).



There will always be uncontrollable variables (luck, bad luck) effecting results in any sport no matter how tightly controlled (a gust of wind in the 100 meters, etc). Sailplane racing, however, is extroidinarily loose in its race quality constraints and therefore intentionally introduces a high degree of chance and luck. This is, of course, justified by the goal of reducing the chance of landouts to as close as zero as possible. Unfortunately the quality of the competition has dropped significantly because of that goal (IMO).



In regards to changing the devaluation rule as you suggest, the "judgement" required to determine the fairness of one pilot "getting away" and starting successfully and another "not having a fair chance" is a very fine line.. Even the launch order on a particular day in a large contest can have significant effect on the outcome (more luck). If we had more overall focus within the sport of soaring (Grand Prix is the exception) on caring about race quality and constraint of racing variables, I would be much more inclined to say that starting success rates also needs a better form of control. But as it stands with only 3% Assigned Tasks and nearly 65% TAT's (many with 60 mile areas!) and free start rules, why does trying to further define starting fairness really matter? If you tighten this rule than why should you not also provide relief for competitors who find there way into the "wrong side" of a 60 mile turn area? Shouldn't they also be able to claim the task was unfair when they were unable to "get away" from the bad luck they experienced in the wide turn area? The same goes for pilots who choose to start early or late and land out because of that decision. Was that skill or luck? Sure some are going to argue that its all skill choosing when to start or choosing which side of a 60 mile turn area is best. Others (me included) would argue that a large degree of luck is involved. You are taking a risk by starting early or late? You are taking a risk when you choose what side of a 60 mile turn area to head towards! In a sport that intentionally designs in a high degree of "variability" (aka chance, aka uncontrollable variables)...complaining about not being able to start while another does is a fairly weak argument when compared with the opportunities for luck that are designed into the sport in general.



2) Fair opportunity to race? Race? Only 3% of our tasks in the USA in 2013 were races (Pure AT's). TAT's and MAT's are distance/average speed/timing your final turn/additional turn points while managing your computer tasks. A gliders relative position to yours is almost meaningless. With only 3% pure AT's we are not really racing sailplanes any more. 3% works out to only 7 US sailplane races in 2013.



3) I find the complaints about PDA's, smart phone driven soaring apps and cellular data particularly amusing. The US RC has already gone to great lengths to ban cell phones, cellular data and satellite data from competition. As Noel says this is unenforceable and with that people are likely ignoring the rule entirely. It would be much easier to simply allow smart phones to be used normally and tell the old schoolers to get over it! In reality, cellular data is very unreliable at altitude ( 2000 ft AGL) and most sailplane pilots are very busy when low. It is fairly unpractical to utilize cellular based data when racing in a glider competition. Sporadic weather updates (radar, etc) is the best that one could expect. That said, checking the weather (radar image) a moment before takeoff to get a picture of thunderstorm activity, etc is a smart thing to do in my opinion and should be allowed. I have already made this argument until I was blue in the face.. It fell on deaf ears. As it stands today you still have complainers who want it banned and an RC who has "banned it" but doesn't care to enforce the rule in the slightest way. Meanwhile many don't care and use it anyway. I don't see the sense in any of it. We should either enforce the rule tightly or make it legal and get out of our own way once and for all.



Sean



Hmmmm. I don't see how this is related to task type or start configuration at all. The central question is whether you get to altitude to get out on course. Having a Grand Prix type start exacerbates that problem and is one reason why organizers are reluctant to implement the Last Start Time for more Grand Prix-type starts. If the weather in the area around the start cycles when you are just off tow you can be left digging out with the task clock running. It's often very tough for a CD to predict exactly when a day will pop to set the gate open and gate close times. Similarly, I find ASTs in variable weather to be more luck-dependent than other task types - and variable weather happens a lot - every single day at R9N had weather issues over significant portions of the task area - including the start. Pilots got cut off from turn points early in the day and late in the day and being forced to go to a 1-mile potentially in the rain would only have upped the luck factor even more.

I agree that there is a difficult "thread the needle" challenge here. When is a failure to get out on course related to bad weather luck versus pilot skill and when is the appropriate remedy to devalue the day versus zero it out it all together? Certainly if you ended up unable to make 1/2 min distance because you couldn't get above release altitude, having the day devalued versus cancelled can still mean a lot of points.

The big challenge with the current system is human behavior -- no one wants to be the one to speak up in the moment or protest after the fact. People invest a lot of time and money in going to contests, it's hard to call a day off while there's still some hope of getting away - no matter how remote. Some objective criteria and guidelines might help. Needs a lot more thought.
  #23  
Old August 12th 14, 01:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JJ Sinclair[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!
Is this fair?
JJ
  #24  
Old August 12th 14, 01:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,965
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

will be interesting to hear a report of what happened.
  #25  
Old August 12th 14, 07:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:46:30 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!

Is this fair?

JJ


Is it fair? Based on the information we have, yes. If 25 pilots finish and 25 land out, is that fair? Well, so far, we've decided yes. This is no different. Half the pilots who tried finished. Pretty good by the standards of a lot of contests!

The rule "pilots who don't try don't count" was put in long ago, in (as usual) response to a snafu. As I recall, a large number of pilots looked at the sky, didn't even assemble, it turned in to a good day but horribly devalued. After that, you only devalue the day if you actually try. (UH will remember the actual story, which I'm undoubtedly getting wrong. But you see the logic).

What we don't know is why so many pilots didn't fly. Looking forward to the story

John Cochrane

  #26  
Old August 12th 14, 09:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:59:26 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:46:30 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:

Looks like it is happening again at Truckee. One finisher gets 850, one land-out gets 239, everyone else gets zero!




Is this fair?




JJ




Is it fair? Based on the information we have, yes. If 25 pilots finish and 25 land out, is that fair? Well, so far, we've decided yes. This is no different. Half the pilots who tried finished. Pretty good by the standards of a lot of contests!



The rule "pilots who don't try don't count" was put in long ago, in (as usual) response to a snafu. As I recall, a large number of pilots looked at the sky, didn't even assemble, it turned in to a good day but horribly devalued. After that, you only devalue the day if you actually try. (UH will remember the actual story, which I'm undoubtedly getting wrong. But you see the logic).



What we don't know is why so many pilots didn't fly. Looking forward to the story



John Cochrane


Some general history on the topic.
It is obvious(to most) that when a significant portion of the pilots attempting the task don't complete that the day should be devalued in some manner..
Originally the requirement was 25% of contestants going at least std min task.
distance.
When, on some occasions, pilots simply didn't try for whatever reason, the rule was changed to 25% of those that "tried", defined and having a scoring distance.
This led to some folks going very short distances to kill the day. That can still happen today but it is very rare, if ever anymore.
There were also time when pilots tore up their landing cards so they would not count to devalue a day and kill it. At least one contest I recall would have been a no contest if that did not happen. Today we are required to turn in flight documentation for all flights so this doesn't happen anymore.
With the implementation of GPS, pilots wanted credit for distance flown before turning around and not going on. The requirement to go at least 1/2 of std min task distance pretty much killed that.
Recently we have heard of a couple cases where it sounds like the criteria for "fair and safe" may not have been met, yet tasks were opened. CD's and task advisers have a responsibility to ensure all have a fair chance to compete.
Sometimes you have to lose a day in the interest of fairness.
We also do not want people feeling they have to go off into storms to stay in the race.
It is also worth noting that this is most easily done using hindsight.
CDs' should not feel pressured to try to make a day out of a bad situation and should not be criticized when they make the safe call, which is many times much harder to make than just throwin' the kids out the window.
FWIW
UH
  #27  
Old August 13th 14, 12:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

Dang! A protest for the last day. There goes my hard earned (and rare) third place...

That is just how my luck goes, my crappy day (land out on Day 3) is full value, but one of my better days is devalued, and now most likely (for good reason) will be thrown out.

Clearly it was more luck than skill which determined who got away and who did not. After all, the "no name" pilot in the lowest performing ship in the class got away while the current national champion with the multi-megabuck ship ate dirt.

Suppose there would be a protest if the three who got away were TT, 7V and ZL? Wouldn't that have been attributed to superb piloting skill rather than just pure dumb luck? Just asking...

On Day 3 a group of us got flushed by the same cloud street that took somebody else to a win with 90+ mph speed. Really bad luck on our part. So it is OK to can a day because the bad luck happens at the start but not OK to can a day because bad luck happens on course? According to the way I read the rules, yes. So the timing of "bad luck" is critical to your score. Bad luck at the start you are safe, bad luck on course, you are toast. But, hey, that's racing.

Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days and instead implement rule 11.4.6.


P9
  #28  
Old August 13th 14, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Robert Dunning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

"Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days"

+1

Rob Dunning



On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:35:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Dang! A protest for the last day. There goes my hard earned (and rare) third place...



That is just how my luck goes, my crappy day (land out on Day 3) is full value, but one of my better days is devalued, and now most likely (for good reason) will be thrown out.



Clearly it was more luck than skill which determined who got away and who did not. After all, the "no name" pilot in the lowest performing ship in the class got away while the current national champion with the multi-megabuck ship ate dirt.



Suppose there would be a protest if the three who got away were TT, 7V and ZL? Wouldn't that have been attributed to superb piloting skill rather than just pure dumb luck? Just asking...



On Day 3 a group of us got flushed by the same cloud street that took somebody else to a win with 90+ mph speed. Really bad luck on our part. So it is OK to can a day because the bad luck happens at the start but not OK to can a day because bad luck happens on course? According to the way I read the rules, yes. So the timing of "bad luck" is critical to your score. Bad luck at the start you are safe, bad luck on course, you are toast. But, hey, that's racing.



Perhaps we should consider deleting rules pertaining to devaluing days and instead implement rule 11.4.6.





P9

  #29  
Old August 13th 14, 12:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Craig R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

We also do not want people feeling they have to go off into storms to stay in the race.

It is also worth noting that this is most easily done using hindsight.

CDs' should not feel pressured to try to make a day out of a bad situation and should not be criticized when they make the safe call, which is many times much harder to make than just throwin' the kids out the window.

FWIW

UH


Agreed.
One point, however, at some soaring sites like Nephi, a turnpoint could be over 70 miles from the start gate. Even at 13000+ around the start gate, task advisors can't see what the weather is doing downrange at that distance. It is a bit of a guess. With volatile weather like we had at Nephi, it really was a guess. The CD was working with the info he had at the time of the start / no start call. I suspect most CD's would have done the same.
On one day where we had lots of landouts, Walt Rogers was kind enough to send the CD (the next day) an overlay of the radar images over the task area at Nephi. It showed how the area blew up downrange well after the start was called and pilots were on course. No way for anyone to guess that was going to happen considering the morning weather reports.
So perhaps some change is needed in the rules on dropping a day "after the fact" when the weather has other ideas than to humor the pilots on course.


  #30  
Old August 13th 14, 01:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

A last thought. Thanks to Ron Gleason, Nephi was ready to experiment with "drop a day" (or, more accurately, "get the winner's score for a day") scoring. That scoring system is designed explicitly to devalue really bad luck that doesn't get picked up by other parts of the rules. It means if you land out before the start, do a lawn dart, or decide that flying in storms just ain't for you, the contest is not over for you. It would have achieved exactly the devaluation on this last day that Tim is calling for. I gather the vote did not go positively, but perhaps in retrospect those of you who voted no might have changed your minds!
John Cochrane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When did the OLC rules change on submission? Tim Taylor Soaring 19 May 11th 10 05:11 PM
[igc-discuss] To change or not to change... rules ? Denis Soaring 0 February 16th 05 08:24 PM
Change the rules for the National Guard.? ArtKramr Military Aviation 91 February 23rd 04 02:48 AM
Change the rules for the National Guard.? Tarver Engineering Naval Aviation 8 February 22nd 04 08:39 PM
Contest rules for 04 Duane Eisenbeiss Soaring 5 February 3rd 04 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.